Thursday, October 7, 2010

To be an agnostic has a pretty bad connotation to many, since they are considered cowards and weaklings who can't choose a determined position in the God debate. Believers consider them infidels, while atheists will consider them worthless and weak.

This is mostly because agnosticism is considered as a middle point between theism and atheism, and whoever falls into that category is not only wrong, but also lacks the compromise to behave according to a certain lifestyle. However, to me, that perception is pretty empty and arbitrary, given that it doesn't take into account the difference between knowledge and belief.

I would like to write more about this, which I'll do in the near future. Something I would like to make clear since this moment is that the discussions between atheists and agnostics seem to me worthless, especially when such discussion go the ad-hominem level, with one side calling names to the other, such as “arrogant” or “ignorant”

So, I present to you three great people who have considered themselves agnostics, but not atheists and, for their work, deserve admiration and recognition.

Thomas H. HuxleyHuxley was an English biologist who played an important role in the popularization of the theory of evolution, so much, that he received the nickname of “Darwin's Bulldog”. Huxley was the first to use the term “agnostic” to describe his theological position.

Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle... Positively the principle may be expressed as in matters of intellect, do not pretend conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable.

Despite being skeptic towards the newly proposed theory of evolution, Huxley became one of the most important players in the secularization of Europe. Even though he considered himself an agnostic, Huxley was against every kind of organized religion.

Why do I admire Huxley? In his time, the theory of evolution was new and there were still many questions about it. He took it skeptically, but later became one of its best proponents.

Carl SaganSagan is one of the most important figures regarding science and its popularization. As he explains in his books, to know something so formidable and not tell everyone was perverse. And despite that, he never considered himself an atheist.

Sagan would be so useful today, what with all the debates about science and religion. By most definitions he would be called an atheist, but he hated the term. "An atheist has to know a lot more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no god. By some definitions atheism is very stupid."

Now, I don't think atheism is stupid, but to get conclusions without a correct interpretation certainly is. As I said before, atheism, agnosticism and theism are not in a line, in which agnosticism is in the middle. More accurately, it would be a Cartesian plane in which gnosticism/agnosticism (this is, knowledge) is in the X axis, while theism/atheism (this is, belief) is in the Y axis.

Pretty much like this

Sagan is very clear in that position, not just in the interview (some fanatic atheist told me that could have been a fake interview), but also in his book The Demon-Haunted World.

Religious doctrine that is insulated from disproof has little reason to worry about the advance of science. The grand idea, common to many faiths, of a Creator of the Universe is one such doctrine – difficult alike to demonstrate or dismiss.

To better illustrate this point, this is an excerpt of Sagan' series “Cosmos”

To understand the existence of a god could be like trying to understand a tridimensional object while one has only two dimensions. Of course, that doesn't mean that we have to think there are actually tridimensional objects, or worse, think we can understand them.

I think that even though Sagan described himself as an agnostic, he would have been fighting for the same ideals many remarkable atheists have nowadays, among them, tho give science a proper place in our lives and fight pseudoscience and the damage they do.

Mario Vargas LlosaThis is why I wrote about agnostics today. Mario Vargas Llosa is an important writer and intellectual in the Spanish-speaking world, who today won the Literature Nobel Prize. For many, Vargas Llosa is a far right activist, while to others is someone who sympathizes with the radical left and its ties to terrorism and communism. In other words, idiots from both sides hate him. I like that.

I also like to read his books. His style is a little bit complicated, since he tends to not follow an order in time and space. But once the reader gets used to that, the book becomes an awesome voyage to the story it is telling.

Even though he run for president in Peru in 1990 for the conservative party, he is not a Catholic, like most of traditional conservatives. He describes himself as an agnostic.

“To be a non-believer was worrying and even anguishing for the Catholics who supported me in the Movimiento Libertad (Freedom Movement) and in the Partido Popular Cristiano (People's Christian Party), especially to those who weren't, as most I knew, routine believer, lax, and purely social, but those who actually wanted to live according to what their faith wanted them to be. I know few Catholics like this.”

“When I started my political life, anticipating to, was evident, my adversaries would try to exploit in the next months, I explained in an interview that I wasn't a believer, neither an atheist, but an agnostic, but I wouldn't discuss religion in this campaign. Religious beliefs, just like friends, sexual and marital life, belong to the private realm, thus, they should be respected and never made for the public debate. I also said it was obvious that, whoever governed Peru, should acknowledge that most Peruvians are Catholics, and thus, act with respect to such beliefs.

From his autobiography “El Pez en el Agua” (The Fish in the Water)

Certainly, I do like to see that someone who I admire and agree (me and many others) is also very reasonable.

So, these are three agnostics that I think are admirable and worthy of recognition. And, even though they shun the “atheist” label, in general, we all are non-believers who have similar ideals and have more in common than differences. If we want to reach such ideals, to fight among us is just shooting at our feet.